DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Environmental Impact Report The Long Beach - Los Angeles Rail Transit Project March 1985 o LACFC Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No 83091415) The Long Beach-Los Angeles Rail Transit Project March 1985 Parsons Brinckerhoff I Kaiser Engineers in Association With: • MYRA L. FRANK & ASSOCIATES • J. WARREN & ASSOCIATES • KENNARD DESIGN GROUP • PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERS • SEDWAY COOKE ASSOCIATES • WILLIAMS-KUEBELBECK and ASSOCIATES • BOLT BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC. Kadison, Pfaelzer, Woodard, Quinn & Rossi PARTICIPATING GOVERNMENT AGENCIES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES • Department of Regional Planning • Road Department • Engineer· Facilities • Community Development Commission • Flood Control District CITY OF LOS ANGELES • Department of Transportation • Planning Department • Department of Public Works • Community Redevelopment Agency CITY OF COMPTON • Planning Department • Department of Public Works • Community Redevelopment Agency CITY OF LONG BEACH • Department of Public Works • Department of Planning and Building • Department of Community Development • Long Beach Transit SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT CITY OF CARSON - Department of Public Works CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IN COOPERATION WITH SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANr--------------, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND PO NER LACTC/RCC UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD LIBRARY ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY oLAO[ LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION HE 4491 .L72 L67 1965 0.6 .05113 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY S-100 HISTORY OF THE PROCESS S-1 S-200 ORGANIZATION OF THE FEIR 5-9 ADDENDUM: OPTIONAL ELEMENTS AND REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT 1-1 100 INTRODUCTION 1-1 200 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES 1-4 210 CONNECTION AT THE LA-2 SUBWAY PORTAL FOR THE HARBOR FREEWAY TRAN51TWAY (Possible Request Accompanying Approval) 1-4 211 Description 1-4 212 During Construction 1-4 212. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-4 212.2 Mitigation Measures 1-5 213 Operations 1-5 213. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-5 213.2 Mitigation Measures 1-5 214 Significance 1-5 300 MID-CORRIDOR 1-6 310 MODIFICATIONS TO MID-CORRIDOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 1-6 311 Revised Traffic Signal Program at Grade Crossings (Revision) 1-6 311 •1 Description 1-6 311 .2 Construction 1-7 311.21 Impacts Assessment 1-7 311.22 Mitigation Measures 1-7 311 .3 Operations 1-7 311. 31 Impacts Assessment 1-7 311 .32 Mitigation Measures 1-10 311.4 Significance 1-11 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 312 Additional Grade Separations in the Mid-Corridor (Possible Request Accompanying Approval) 1-12 312. 1 Description 1-12 312.2 Construction 1-13 312.21 Impacts Assessment 1-13 312.22 Mitigation Measures 1-14 312.3 Operations 1-14 312.31 Impacts Assessment 1-14 312.32 Mitigation Measures 1-15 312.4 Significance 1-15 320 RELOCATION OF TRACKS IN MID-CORRIDOR ( Revision) 1-16 321 Description 1-16 322 Construction 1-16 322. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-16 322.2 Mitigation Measures 1-20 323 Operations 1-20 323. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-20 323.2 Mitigation Measures 1-21 324 Significance 1-22 330 LOWERING THE TRACK PROFILE IN THE MID-CORRIDOR (Revision) 1-23 331 Description 1-23 332 Construction 1-23 332. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-23 332.2 Mitigation 1-24 333 Operations 1-24 333. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-24 333.2 Mitigation Measures 1-25 334 Significance 1-25 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 340 NON-REVENUE CONNECTION AT THE PROPOSED CENTURY FREEWAY TRANSITWAY (Revision) 1-26 341 Description 1-26 342 Construction 1-26 342.1 Impacts Assessment 1-26 342.2 Mitigation Measures 1-26 343 Operations 1-28 343.1 Impacts Assessment 1-28 343.2 Mitigation Measures 1-28 344 Significance 1-28 350 SECURITYI CENTRAL CONTROL FACI LITY ( Revision) 1-29 351 Description 1-29 352 Construction 1-29 352.1 Impacts Assessment 1-29 352.2 Mitigation Measures 1-29 353 Operations 1-31 353.1 Impacts Assessment 1-31 353.2 Mitigation Measures 1-32 354 Sign ificance 1-32 360 ALTERNATE MAIN YARD AND SHOP SITE (Option) 1-33 361 Description 1-33 362 Construction 1-35 362.1 Impacts Assessment 1-35 362.2 Mitigation Measures 1-37 363 Operations 1-37 363.1 Impacts Assessment 1-37 363.2 Mitigation Measures 1-40 364 Significance 1-40 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 400 LONG BEACH 1-41 410 DESIGN REFINEMENT OF LB-5, SOUTH OF 7th STREET (Option) 1-41 411 Description 1-41 412 Construction 1-41 412. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-41 412.2 Mitigation Measures 1-43 413 Operations 1-45 413. 1 Impacts Assessment 1-45 413.2 Mitigation Measures 1-48 414 Significance 1-48 420 EMBANKMENT AT HILL STREET PUMP STATION (Option) 1-49 421 Description 1-49 422 Construction I-51 422. 1 Impacts Assessment I-51 422.2 Mitigation Measures I-51 423 Operations I-51 423. 1 Impacts Assessment I-51 423.2 Mitigation Measures I-52 424 Significance I-52 II ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 11-1 100 INTRODUCTION 11-1 200 OVERVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS 11-3 210 MAJOR ELEMENTS AND CONSIDERATIONS 11-3 300 SELECTION OF EVALUATION MEASURES 11-3 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 400 TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 11-6 410 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES 11-6 411 Ridership (Measures 1 & 2) 11-6 412 Transit Service (Measures 3-10) 11-7 413 Cost and Revenue (Measures 11-14) 11-9 414 Energy (Measures 15-17) 11-10 415 Environmental Impacts (Measures 18-27) 11-10 416 Comformity with Plans and Policies (Measure 28) 11-13 420 MID-CORRIDOR 11-20 421 Ridership (Measures 1 & 2) 11-20 422 Transit Service (Measures 3-10) 11-20 423 Cost and Revenue (Measures 11-14) 11-21 424 Energy (Measures 15-17) 11-21 425 Environmental Impacts (Measures 18-27 11-21 426 Conformity with Plans and Policies (Measure 28) 11-24 430 LONG BEACH 11-31 431 Ridership (Measures 1 & 2) 11-31 432 Transit Service (Measures 3-10) 11-31 433 Cost and Revenue (Measures 11-14) 11-33 434 Energy (Measures 15-17) 11-33 435 Environmental Impacts (Measures 18-27 11-33 436 Conformity with Plans and Policies (Measure 28) 11-37 500 RECOMMENDATIONS 11-44 510 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES 11-44 511 Principal Conclusions 11-44 512 Project Recommendation for Downtown Los Angeles 11-48 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 520 MID-CORRIDOR 11-49 521 Comparison of Basic Alternatives 11-49 522 MC-3 Enhancements II-53 523 Comparison of Alternatives MC-1 and MC-3 II-53 524 Project Recommendation for the Mid-Corridor II-56 530 LONG BEACH II-58 531 Analysis of Baseline Alternatives II-58 531 . 1 Summary Rankings II-58 531.2 Ranking With Service and and Impact Measures 11-61 531.3 Public Opinion 11-64 531.4 Policy Implications of Available Choices 11-65 532 Analysis of Optional Treatments 11-69 532. 1 Probable Adverse Impacts and Proposed Mitigation 11-69 532.2 Analysis and Conclusions 11-70 I 600 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 11-71 III COMMENTS REQUIRING RESPONSES II 1-1 100 INTRODUCTION 111-1 200 ABBREVIATIONS OF AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING 111-2 300 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY TOPIC - DEIR 111-5 301 Accessibility 111-6 302 Ai r Qual ity II 1-8 303 Alternatives Analysis 111-11 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 304 Bus Service 1-12 305 Business Impacts 1-17 306 Community Involvements 1-19 307 Configuration 1-19 308 Construction Impacts 1-24 309 Coordination 1-29 310 Cumulative Impacts 1-31 311 Data Request 1-32 312 Displacement 1-34 313 Economics 1-34 314 Fare Collection 1-37 315 Financial 1-38 316 Freight Operations 1-43 317 General Impacts 1-47 318 Goals and Objectives I-54 319 Historic Issues I-56 320 Impacts on Churches 1-60 321 Impacts on Schools 1-62 322 Implementation/ Construction Methods 1-64 323 Land Use 1-65 324 Mitigation 1-68 325 Neighborhood Impacts 1-73 326 Noise and Vibration 1-73 327 Operations 1-77 328 Parking 1-83 329 Patronage 1-85 330 Pedestrian Issues 1-90 331 Presentation 1-92 332 Procedure 1-94 333 Rail Coordination 111-97 334 Residential Housing Impacts 111-100 335 Right-of-Way 111-102 336 Safety and Security 111-104 337 Seismic 111-110 338 Service 111-112 339 Socioeconomics 111-115 340 Soils and Geology 111-117 341 Stations 111-118 342 Technology 111-119 343 Traffic 111-122 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page 344 Travel Times 111-146 345 Vegetation 111-149 346 Vehicles 111-150 347 Visual Quality 111-151 348 Miscellaneous 111-157 349 Corrections and Additions 111-161 111-400 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES BY TOPIC - SEIR 111-177 401 Adequacy 111-177 402 Bus Service 111-181 403 Commun ity Services 111-186 404 Cumulative Impacts 111-186 405 Data Request 111-187 406 Displacement 111-188 407 Economic Activity 111-189 408 Financial 111-194 409 Impacts on Schools 111-195 410 Joint Development 111-196 411 Mitigation Measures 111-197 412 Noise and Vibration 111-198 413 Operations 111-208 414 Patronage 111-208 415 Procedure 111-213 416 Recreational Impacts 111-214 417 Regional Rail Connections 111-215 418 Related Projects 111-215 419 Residential 1mpacts 111-217 420 Right-of-Way 111-221 421 Safety and Security 111-222 422 Socioeconomics 111-225 423 Soils and Hydrology 111-227 424 Stations 111-228 425 Technology 111-230 426 Traffic 111-230 427 Utility Relocation 111-245 428 Vegetation and Wildlife 111-246 429 Visual Impacts 111-246 430 Miscellaneous 111-249 431 Correctionsand Additions 111-253 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) IV COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING RESPONSES IV-1 100 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) IV-1 11 0 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS IV-2 120 DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES ALTERNATIVES IV-2 130 MID-CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES IV-4 140 LONG BEACH ALTERNATIVES IV-4 200 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR) IV-6 210 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS IV-6 220 SUMMARY OF OPINIONS IV-6 230 ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS IV-8 V CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS V-1 100 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) V-1 200 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR) V-23 VI PERSONS AND ORGANIZATIONS COMMENTING VI-1 100 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) VI-1 200 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SEIR) VI-S APPENDIX LIST OF ADDITIONAL PREPARERS A-l ix LIST OF TABLES Table No.
Recommended publications
  • Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service

    Volume I Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service

    VOLUME I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESTORATION OF HISTORIC STREETCAR SERVICE IN DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES J U LY 2 0 1 8 City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering Table of Contents Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.3 Background ............................................................................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.4 7th Street Alignment Alternative ................................................................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................ ES-7 ES.6 Construction .......................................................................................................................................................... ES-7 ES.7 Operations and Ridership ...............................................................................................................................
  • Planning Department Transmittal to the City Clerk’S Office

    Planning Department Transmittal to the City Clerk’S Office

    PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMITTAL TO THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE ENVIRONMENTAL CITY PLANNING CASE: COUNCIL DISTRICT: DOCUMENT: DIR-2019-5213-TOC-SPR ENV-2019-5215-SCPE 15 - Buscaino PROJECT ADDRESS: 1700 East 103rd Street, 10341 South Graham Avenue, 10403 South Graham Avenue, 1663 East 108th Street, and 10400 Grandee Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90002 APPLICANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: Watts Station LP 11811 San Vicente Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90049 (310) 820-4888 [email protected] r New/Changed APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: Dana A. Sayles Three6ixty (310) 204-3500 [email protected] 11287 Washington Boulevard [email protected] Culver City, CA 90230 APPELLANT TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: APPELLANT’S REPRESENTATIVE TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: PLANNER CONTACT INFORMATION: TELEPHONE NUMBER: EMAIL ADDRESS: Connie Chauv, City Planner (213) 978-0016 [email protected] ENTITLEMENTS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION Sustainable Communities Project CEQA Exemption (SB 375) Transmittal Rev 04/05/17 1 FINAL ENTITLEMENTS NOT ADVANCING: ITEMS APPEALED: ATTACHMENTS: REVISED: ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE: REVISED: F Letter of Determination r r Categorical Exemption r r Findings of Fact r r Negative Declaration r r Staff Recommendation Report r r Mitigated Negative Declaration r r Conditions of Approval r r Environmental Impact Report r r Ordinance r r Mitigation Monitoring Program r r Zone Change Map r F Other r r GPA Resolution r Sustainable Communities Project Exemption r Land Use Map r r Exhibit A - Site Plan r F Mailing List r r Land Use r r Other r NOTES / INSTRUCTION(S): Sustainable Communities Project CEQA Exemption (SB 375) FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT: F Yes r No *If determination states administrative costs are recovered through fees, indicate “Yes”.
  • Design Preliminary Engineering Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar

    Design Preliminary Engineering Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar

    REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) for 30%-Design Preliminary Engineering for the Downtown Los Angeles Streetcar LOS ANGELES STREETCAR, INC AUGUST 14, 2015 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Los Angeles Streetcar, Inc. (LASI) is seeking an Engineering Firm/Team (Design Consultant) to develop 30% Engineering Design for the proposed Los Angeles Streetcar (“Project”). The Project is currently undergoing environmental review pursuant to CEQA, to be followed by federal NEPA review upon certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Project is also in the process of securing federal funding under the FTA Small Starts program, and exploring potential P3 partnerships for capital funding and operational support. The work of the Design Consultant will be overseen by LASI and the City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering (BOE), with close coordination with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (DOT)—LASI, BOE, and DOT are referred to herein as the Streetcar Project Team. The Design Consultant’s day-to-day communications will be with the Principal Civil Engineer at BOE. To advance the Project, the Design Consultant will develop plans to 30% Design and Engineering concurrent with the Metro-led environmental review process. The Scope of Work (SOW) for the Design Consultant will focus on defining the project’s centerline, geometry, profile, and cross sections, and will identify utility conflicts and work with utility companies to identify potential solutions, address project risks and impacts, provide the basis for a refined cost estimate, and position the project for federal funding and potential public-private partnership(s). The SOW includes 30% Design and Engineering for each of the 4 Project Alternatives evaluated in the EIR: 1) 7th St alternative with Grand Ave extension; 2) 7th St alternative without Grand Ave extension; 3) 9th St alternative with Grand Ave extension; and 4) 9th St alternative without Grand Ave extension.
  • Armando Aguirre

    Armando Aguirre

    Armando Aguirre SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT [email protected] AREA OF EXPERTISE BUSINESS AND EDUCATIONAL EDUCATION AND Armando Aguirre, founder and corporate BACKGROUND QUALIFICATIONS broker of Legendary Commercial Real California Department of Real Estate Estate specializes in the sale and leasing of Colorado State University community shopping centers, net-leased License # 0590123 Ft. Collins, Colorado properties and other investments. Additional areas of focus include land development for Previously, Armando served as AFFILIATIONS AND major retail centers, fast food restaurants President and Corporate Broker for MEMBERSHIPS and Hispanic-oriented and targeted retail. Metroscape Real Estate Inc. in Downtown Los Angeles, where he and International Councils of his partners who were Urban in-fill Retail PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS Shopping Centers (ICSC) Developers, successfully developed, Armando is a thirty-seven-year veteran in built, leased and sold multiple retail Loopnet the real estate industry with a broad range shopping centers throughout greater Los of commercial real estate experience. He is Costar Angeles over a ten year period. a proven performer with a consistent history National Institute of Exchange of successful transactions. He is also a He is known as one of the preeminent Counselors well-known and sought after speaker at authorities and Brokers on the emerging industry seminars and events. Real Estate Investment Hispanic Retail Market in Southern Association of California California. SAMPLE LIST OF CLIENTS AND TRANSACTIONS CCIM Designee Candidate CONTACT DETAILS MOB+ 1 213.926.5595 DIR + 1 213 986 5579 FAX + 1 323 876 3529 Legendary Commercial Real Estate 1725 Camino Palmero #430 Los Angeles, CA 90046 www.LegendaryCRE.com REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS AND PROJECTS Katell Properties Pacific Development Partners Summit Commercial Southland Consulting Group Pacific Retail Trust Weinstock Smith & Weinstock Bank of America Farrell Business Ventures RMR Properties Colyear Development Univest Kwan Properties The Ratkovich Co.
  • Federal Transit Administration

    Federal Transit Administration

    Finding of No Significant Impact Grant Applicant: City of Los Angeles Project: Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in Downtown Los Angeles Project Location: City of Los Angeles, California The Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Restoration of Historic Streetcar Service in Downtown Los Angeles (Project) was prepared in cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4332); the Federal Transit Laws (49 U.S.C. 5301(e), 5323(b), and 5324(b)); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303); and Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations). FTA is the federal lead agency for the Project under the NEPA. Development of the Project and its environmental review process are being managed through the joint cooperation of the City of Los Angeles (City) Department of Transportation (LADOT), Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Additional support is being provided by City Council District 14 and Los Angeles Streetcar Inc. (LASI), an independent non-profit agency. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the design features and mitigation measures presented in the EA. The full text of the EA, prepared by the City of Los Angeles and approved and issued by FTA, is hereby incorporated by reference in this Finding of No Significant Impact. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project proposes to enhance mobility options to residents, employees and visitors of downtown Los Angeles through expanded transit circulation service and as well as support the growth and revitalization of downtown Los Angeles.
  • A New Construction Signalized Corner 100% Occupied Nnn Shopping Center with a Stable Mix of National and Local Tenants Investment Advisors

    A New Construction Signalized Corner 100% Occupied Nnn Shopping Center with a Stable Mix of National and Local Tenants Investment Advisors

    A NEW CONSTRUCTION SIGNALIZED CORNER 100% OCCUPIED NNN SHOPPING CENTER WITH A STABLE MIX OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL TENANTS INVESTMENT ADVISORS BRANDON MICHAELS Senior Managing Director of Investments Senior Director, National Retail Group Tel: (818) 212-2794 Fax: (818) 212-2710 [email protected] License: CA #01434685 www.BrandonMichaelsGroup.com JOSEPH KHOSHSIMA The Real Estate Agency Commercial & Industrial Vice President Tel: (213) 675-9775 [email protected] License: CA #01739843 BRANDON MICHAELS GROUP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S PREMIER SALES TEAM 16830 Ventura Blvd. Suite 100, Encino, CA 91436 www.marcusmillichap.com 1 PROPERTY OVERVIEW 2 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 3 COMPARABLE ANALYSIS 4 AREA OVERVIEW LOS ANGLELES South Gate Park 93 Acre Park Within FOOD MART Walking Distance to the Property PINEHURST AVENUE TWEEDY BOULEVARD COMING SOON New/Approved Mixed-use Development ATLANTIC AVENUE 4 5 A NEW CONSTRUCTION SIGNALIZED CORNER 100% OCCUPIED NNN SHOPPING CENTER WITH A STABLE MIX OF NATIONAL AND LOCAL TENANTS Marcus & Millichap has been selected to exclusively market for sale Tweedy Atlantic Plaza, a 20,248 square foot shopping center built in 2014 and home to a stable and seasoned mix of national and local retailers that ideally serve the dense immediate population. Tweedy Atlantic Plaza is ideally located on the Southeast signalized corner of Atlantic Avenue and Tweedy Boulevard, directly across from a significant development site and within close proximity to the Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway. The center sits on 1.01 acres of land (43,996 square feet), and is surrounded by dense single family residential dwellings, multi-family units, schools, and parks. Tweedy Atlantic Plaza is one hundred percent occupied, with a majority of the current tenant base successfully operating from this center since its inception.
  • PARK 101 District Governance Analysis White Paper

    PARK 101 District Governance Analysis White Paper

    PARK 101 District Governance Analysis White Paper May 2012 May 2012 PARK 101 Steering Committee This is a project of the City of Los Angeles with funding provided by the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Compass Blueprint Program. Compass Blueprint assists Southern California cities and other organizations in evaluating planning options and stimulating development consistent with the region’s goals. Compass Blueprint tools support visioning efforts, infill analyses, economic and policy analyses, and marketing and communication programs. The preparation of this report was funded in part through grant(s) from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) in accordance with the Metropolitan Planning Program as set forth in Section 104(f) of Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of SCAG, DOT or the State of California. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation. SCAG shall not be responsible for the City’s future use or adaptation of the report. ii May 2012 PARK 101 Steering Committee Table of Contents 1. Introduction & Purpose of the White Paper ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................
  • Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932

    Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932

    LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Context: Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932 Prepared for: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources July 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 CONTRIBUTOR 1 INTRODUCTION 1 THEME: WILMINGTON, 1862-1909 4 THEME: SAN PEDRO, 1882-1909 30 THEME: HOLLYWOOD, 1887-1910 56 THEME: SAWTELLE, 1896-1918 82 THEME: EAGLE ROCK, 1886-1923 108 THEME: HYDE PARK, 1887-1923 135 THEME: VENICE, 1901-1925 150 THEME: WATTS, 1902-1926 179 THEME: BARNES CITY, 1919-1926 202 THEME: TUJUNGA, 1888-1932 206 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPY 232 SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement Pre-consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932 PREFACE This historic context is a component of Los Angeles’ citywide historic context statement and provides guidance to field surveyors in identifying and evaluating potential historic resources relating to Pre- Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles. Refer to www.HistoricPlacesLA.org for information on designated resources associated with this context as well as those identified through SurveyLA and other surveys. CONTRIBUTOR Daniel Prosser is a historian and preservation architect. He holds an M.Arch. from Ohio State University and a Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. Before retiring, Prosser was the Historic Sites Architect for the Kansas State Historical Society. INTRODUCTION The “Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles” context examines those communities that were at one time independent, self-governing cities. These include (presented here as themes): Wilmington, San Pedro, Hollywood, Sawtelle, Eagle Rock, Hyde Park, Venice, Watts, Barnes City, and Tujunga. This context traces the history of each of these cities (up to the point of consolidation with the City of Los Angeles), identifying important individuals and patterns of settlement and development, and then links the events and individuals to extant historic resources (individual resources and historic districts).
  • Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan Project Team

    Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan Project Team

    First/Last Mile: A Community-Based Process and Plan March 2018 Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan Project Team Los Angeles Metro Transit Oriented Communities Jenna Hornstock, Deputy Executive Officer Jacob Lieb, Senior Director Katie Lemmon, Transportation Planning Manager Community / Consultants Fehr & Peers Here Design Studio (Here LA) Gensler LA County Bicycle Coalition T.R.U.S.T South LA Asian Pacific Islander Forward Movement Multicultural Communities for Mobility This report represents over a year of Ride On! Bike Co-op work by Metro and the project team. Special thanks to the Community East Side Riders Bike Club Groups listed to the right, who were invaluable members of the project Healthy Active Streets team. Pueblo (primary Plan author) Sumire Gant Consulting (primary Plan author) ProForma Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan Contents i Executive Summary iii Key Findings of the Plan iv Contents of the Plan 01 11 21 Introduction Context Process 04 First/Last Mile Defined 012 History of Redlining 025 Phase 1: Walk Audits Phase 2: Community Events 04 Vision & Policy 014 History of Blue Line 027 Planning and Development 033 Phase 3: Drafting the Report First/Last Mile & the Blue 06 033 Phase 4: Sharing Findings Line 017 Social Context Today 035 039 043 Recommendations Implementation Lessons Learned 044 Ensuring Equity in Future First/Last Mile Plans Appendices A Station Area Summaries B Project List & Cost Estimation Methodology Memo C First/Last Mile Note on Wayfinding Signage Plans D Comments Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i Executive Summary - Blue Line First/Last Mile Plan his First/Last Mile (FLM) Plan, prepared for all 22 stations on the Metro Blue Line (MBL), is a groundbreaking effort for Metro and its project team, composed of transportation planners and Community-Based Organizations (CBOs).
  • 2006 C.3 Harbor Subdivision Transit Analysis

    2006 C.3 Harbor Subdivision Transit Analysis

    1JiIi~ ENGINEERS ?LAo~NERS •••••• ECONOMISTS ........~ro'" WilburSmith ASSOC, ... TlS Metro ---34937 TF OCT 02 2007 870 .H377 2006 c.3 Harbor Subdivision Transit Analysis Final Report Submitted to: The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Trausportation Authority Prepared by: Wilhur Smith Associates UltraSystems Environmental RAW International December 22, 2006 • Executive Summary HARBOR SUBDIVISION TRANSIT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE In 1992, the former Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LAcrq purchased the majority of the Harbor Subdivision, the mainline of the former Atchison Topc:ka & Santa Fe Railw:ay (ATSF or Santa Fe) ~tween downtown Los Angeles and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As part of that agreement, ATSF retained the right to provide freight rail servia on the portion of the line owned by the LAcre, and LAcre retained the right to operate passenger service on the line. Today, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), the succ('ssor railroad to the ATSF, still operates freight trains on the line, although the total is a small fraction ofwhat it was at Ute time of the purchase. Neither LACfC nor its successor agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), ran any passenger service on the line. The line studied appears as Figure £5.1 on the following page. With this analysis, Metro has attempted to investigate the feasibility of the potential deployment of various transit modes on its portion of the Harbor Subdivision. The attempt has been to make use of as much of the 26.36-mile right-of-way as may be practical, realizing that some sections of the line run through primarily industrial land uses.
  • WARN Report Summary by Received Date 07/01/2019 - 06/30/2020 State Fiscal Year No

    WARN Report Summary by Received Date 07/01/2019 - 06/30/2020 State Fiscal Year No

    WARN Report Summary by Received Date 07/01/2019 - 06/30/2020 State Fiscal Year No. Of Notice Date Effective Date Received Date Company City County Employees Layoff/Closure 06/10/2020 06/09/2020 06/30/2020 Harbor Bay Club, Inc Alameda Alameda County 80 Layoff Temporary 03/20/2020 03/20/2020 06/30/2020 MD2 Industries, LLC Long Beach Los Angeles County 109 Closure Temporary 06/30/2020 08/21/2020 06/30/2020 NBCUniversal Media, LLC - Digital Lab Unit Universal City Los Angeles County 28 Layoff Temporary 04/22/2020 06/22/2020 06/30/2020 House of Blues Anaheim Anaheim Orange County 8 Closure Temporary 06/29/2020 08/01/2020 06/30/2020 ADESA California, LLC dba ADESA/AFC Los Mira Loma Riverside County 71 Layoff Permanent Angeles 06/17/2020 06/17/2020 06/30/2020 K&N Engineering, Inc. Riverside Riverside County 44 Layoff Permanent 06/29/2020 07/28/2020 06/30/2020 Benchmark Arrowhead, LLC dba Lake Lake Arrowhead San Bernardino County 114 Layoff Permanent Arrowhead Resort and Spa 06/18/2020 07/06/2020 06/30/2020 HOWMET Aerospace Fontana San Bernardino County 75 Layoff Temporary 06/18/2020 06/16/2020 06/30/2020 Bahia Resort Hotel San Diego San Diego County 47 Layoff Permanent 06/18/2020 06/16/2020 06/30/2020 Catamaran Resort Hotel and Spa San Diego San Diego County 46 Layoff Permanent 06/18/2020 06/16/2020 06/30/2020 The Lodge Torrey Pines La Jolla San Diego County 84 Layoff Permanent 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/30/2020 Bahia Resort Hotel San Diego San Diego County 33 Layoff Temporary 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/30/2020 Catamaran Resort Hotel and Spa San Diego San Diego County 33 Layoff Temporary 06/18/2020 06/18/2020 06/30/2020 The Lodge Torrey Pines La Jolla San Diego County 37 Layoff Temporary 06/08/2020 03/30/2020 06/30/2020 SmartCareMD Escondido San Diego County 38 Layoff Permanent 06/29/2020 08/31/2020 06/30/2020 Stryker Employment Company Menlo Park San Mateo County 33 Layoff Permanent 06/29/2020 08/29/2020 06/30/2020 Nitto, Inc.
  • LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan    

    LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan    

    Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan 2020 In Memory In Tribute LA Metro honors the memory and legacy of Connie Rivera, the LA County owes a deep debt of gratitude to the truck drivers, Public Affairs Director for the Alameda Corridor Transportation warehouse workers and all essential members of the logistics Authority, who for many years provided tremendous insight, sector for keeping our homes, businesses and hospitals wisdom, leadership and her trademark great sense of humor supplied with food, medicine and other necessities during in many LA County goods movement forums and discussions. the COVID-19 crisis. Your dedication and bravery ensured our families would be fed and have access to necessary goods at a A product of Southern California, Connie resided in Long critical time in our history. Thank you. Beach, attended local schools and earned her bachelor’s degree from Cal State University, Long Beach. She was passionate about her family and serving her community through the YMCA and Rotary Club. She will be remembered fondly by her many colleagues, especially the Ladies of Logistics, an informal group of women in non-traditional jobs serving the Logistics Industry in Southern California. Connie led with humility and graced Metro as a member of the Freight Working Group – her vision and voice are embedded within the vision, principles and priorities of the LA County Goods Movement Strategic Plan. Metro dedicates this Plan to Connie’s memory and her unwavering belief that through hard work, collaboration and kindness people can come together to lift up and improve the quality of life for all LA County residents, families and communities.